The Mystery of the Trinity: A Trinitarian Approach to the Attributes of God

by Vern Sheridan Poythress

Starting with the doctrine of the Trinity, Vern Poythress addresses six challenges concerning the compatibility of God’s independence with his activities in the world. The eternal activities among the persons of the Trinity offer a foundation for God’s activities in the world. Alternative metaphysical frameworks for explaining God’s transcendence and immanence run the danger of overriding the truths of biblical revelation.

Genres: Theology, Philosophy, Christian

730 pages, Kindle Edition

Published October 5, 2020

About the author

Vern Sheridan Poythress was born in 1946 in Madera, California, where he lived with his parents Ransom H. Poythress and Carola N. Poythress and his older brother Kenneth R. Poythress. After teaching mathematics for a year at Fresno State College (now California State University at Fresno), he became a student at Westminster Theological Seminary, where he earned an M.Div. (1974) and a Th.M. in apologetics (1974). He received an M.Litt. in New Testament from University of Cambridge (1977) and a Th.D. in New Testament from the University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa (1981).

He has been teaching in New Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia since 1976. In 1981 he was ordained as a teaching elder in the Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod, which has now merged with the Presbyterian Church in America.

More information about his teaching at Westminster can be found at the Westminster Seminary website.

Dr. Poythress studied linguistics and Bible translation at the Summer Institute of Linguistics in Norman Oklahoma in 1971 and 1972, and taught linguistics at the Summer Institute of Linguistics in the summers of 1974, 1975, and 1977. He has published books on Christian philosophy of science, theological method, dispensationalism, biblical law, hermeneutics, Bible translation, and Revelation. A list of publications is found on this website.

Dr. Poythress married his wife Diane in 1983, and they have two children, Ransom and Justin. He has side interests in science fiction, string figures, volleyball, and computers.

The family lived on a farm until he was five years old. When he was nine years old he made a public commitment to Christ and was baptized in Chowchilla First Baptist Church, Chowchilla, California. The family later moved to Fresno, California, and he graduated from Bullard High School in Fresno.

He earned a B.S. in mathematics from California Institute of Technology (1966) and a Ph.D. in mathematics from Harvard University (1970).

Reviews

[Jordan B Cooper · Rating 2 out of 5]

I hesitate to give anything such a low rating, but this is a book I am having a genuinely difficult time finding anything positive to say about. With the growth in literature defending Classical Theism (James Dolezal, Steven Duby, the publications of The Davenant Institute) it is unsurprising that theologians who disagree with this shift would begin writing lengthy works to promote a differing perspective. This volume is an attempt to do that, but ultimately fails on nearly every level. It is not merely a matter of my disagreeing with Poythress' conclusions throughout the work (which I do), but of his consistent misunderstandings of the CT position throughout the book, and overly simplistic rejection of categories not directly outlined by Scripture. The work is poorly argued throughout, and Poythress never seems to know whether he is writing for a technical or popular audience. If you are looking for something that challenges the CT perspective with more rigor, I recommend Jay Wesley Richards' book The Untamed God.

[Eric Yap · Rating 5 out of 5]

Simply magnificent. Sinclair Ferguson’s foreword to this book is perhaps a brilliant and succinct review to this accomplishment of Dr. Poythress. And he is right to describe Poythress as both a polymath and a pastor: a linguist for the sake of hermeneutics, a Harvard mathematician, a systematic theologian, a philosopher in the Van Tillian tradition and a New Testament scholar, yet Dr. Poythress have set out on this impressive project for the average churchgoer and bible reader. The 600-page thickness is perhaps slightly alarming (and I must say, beautifully bound in navy blue fabric cover), the page count is necessary because there are not a lot of words in a single page (which I think is intentionally inviting), he ends each chapter with a glossary, further readings, study questions, and even a prayer. Poythress employs approximately a hundred diagrams to help with illustration (perhaps because he is a mathematician?), and Ferguson describes reading Poythress as an exhilarating ascend to Mount Everest: it begins relatively simple and easy as he seeks to construct the premises and basics, and the ascend gets more and more difficult and challenging but it is simply rewarding. Part 1 to 4 explore methodology, some basic attributes of God and the doctrine of Trinity in a relatively simple fashion by giving definitions and dropping biblical citations, with an intentional focus on how the attributes are revealed in the Trinitarian work of Christ’s resurrection. And indeed, the Trinitarian work of resurrection and revelation is the central shaft of Poythress’ project to construct a biblical-faithful language for the doctrine of God. If God reveals His Trinitarian self to us through Christ, then the resurrection of Christ must be Trinitarian revelation par excellence (taking his cues from Richard Gaffin, whose lifework was on the centrality of the resurrection in the gospel). And both revelation and resurrection, and in fact all of God’s speech and act is Trinitarian work: The Father speaks, Christ is the eternal Logos, and the Holy Spirit inspires Holy Scripture. The Father ordains, sends and raise, the Son execute and was raised, all through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Part 4 to 8 is where it starts to get challenging and the shape of Poythress’ thesis taking form. Poythress challenges the dependence of classical Christian theism on Aristotelian metaphysics and highlights some of its deficiencies, mainly it niche and abstract metaphysical categories that are not constructed upon scripture. If God reveals His Trinitarian self through Christ, and Christ is revealed through the scripture, we must ask why the insistence on abstract Aristotelian categories to bypass Christian language and scripture. If God is truly sufficient and absolute, why would scriptural revelation be insufficient or inferior to Aristotelian categories? In fact, Aristotelian categories are decidedly single-levelled and do not entertain biblical principles of accommodation (as Bavinck would say, all scripture is accommodation, I think Poythress would add, all language is accommodation) and anthropomorphism, nor analogy nor the Creator-creature distinction (Van Til’s concept). For example, if it speaks of God’s simplicity and essence in an absolute Aristotelian sense (just as any secular philosophies aim to reduce the reality of the world into a single metaphysical category, I.e materialism in Marx or idealism in Kant), then it fails to make space for the Trinity or the distinction of persons in the Trinity, nor distinction between Creator and creature. Instead, Poythress’ thesis of this book is to posit that we must do theology proper by constructing upon the doctrine of the Trinity, that is the Trinity must be the ontological basic foundation because it holds together both unity and diversity, the unity of Godhood and the diversity of persons, which then is analogous to all reality in the created world (for creation proceeds from God yet it is not God) and also for the language that the bible and we can use to describe God (for we are made in God’s image).

Poythress also examined how dependence on abstract and niche Aristotelian categories have influenced the doctrines of God in Aquinas, Turrentin and Charnock. All of their attempt to safeguard God’s simplicity and aseity in an Aristotelian sense, in the end, ascribed God’s actions and attributes as either eminence (only in effect to us) or perception (God does not really move or act or ascribe new relations, it is only in our perceptions). But such an overtly transcendental view of God constructed upon Aristotelian metaphysics, brought to a logical conclusion, maintains that we cannot know God truthfully in the end. If as Aristotelian divine simplicity postulates, God’s attributes are truly indistinguishable in essence, that love is justice, and justice is mercy, and mercy is wrath as well, then how can we truly say we experience God’s love and mercy in a real sense, worse still, how can God’s love be analogous to human love, and in the end, how can we know God truly or anything at all, if all is unreal and only perceptive. On the other end, if God is fully immanent, it also becomes pantheism. Therefore, Poythress postulate the solution as the mystery of Trinity: both unity of Godhood and distinction of persons is present in the Trinity, and therefore all unity and distinction in God and in the world are analogous to the Trinity. God is one, yet He is Triune. God is immutable, yet He has relations with us. God is unchanging, but He works in time. God is truly loving and just as He is truly justice, yet they are distinguishable and does not threaten the simplicity and unity of God, just as the Trinity is in full coherence with simplicity and oneness. And all this Poythress humbly submits that they are a mystery, the mystery of the most profound sense: God is both transcendental and immanent, and it should sit comfortably with us to not depend on Aristotelian metaphysics to reduce it for the sake of being able to fully understand or describe it, as doing so would threaten the concept of transcendental itself.

Reading this book brought to my mind James Dolezal’s All That is in God published 2 years ago that enjoyed the raving reviews of Kevin DeYoung and many other. Dolezal’s work is a polemic against open theism and even reformed evangelicalism brightest theologians, positing that they have unintentionally compromised on historic classical Christian theism (Oliphint, Grudem, Carson, Packer, Ware, Vanhoozer, Frame). All that I have learnt about classical Christian theism, I learnt from Dolezal firsthand, and it really enriched me about the doctrines of God. Yet Poythress’ suggestion that we move beyond Aristotelian metaphysics to biblical categories and a Triune approach to the doctrines of God is captivating, and it makes a lot of sense biblical-theologically and it stirs devotional piety towards the Triune God revealed in Christ. Poythress did addressed Dolezal’s camp, his critics and those advocating for revision in classical Christian theism in his appendixes as well, all in an irenic and pious spirit. It seems that Poythress would belong to the camp of faithful and biblical revision to the classical doctrine of God, to move beyond Aristotelian categories that are single-levelled, aim to dispel all mystery and claim complete comprehension over the transcendental God, to the Trinitarian mystery that holds together both transcendent and immanence, unity and diversity, to know God truly yet not to comprehend Him fully.

However, though Poythress charts the way, he leaves the implications out and suggests that it is a bold way forward and further work is needed, which requires the entire church, in love and in unity. Therefore, I am left slightly puzzled at how it would ultimately look like, can we still confess “one in substance and essence, distinct in three persons (also, I wished Poythress had addressed the concept of pure actuality/actus purus/pure act in classical Christian theism)?” Even the idea of “ontological basic” seems like an Aristotelian language, though Poythress did contend that appropriating Aristotelian or philosophical concept into biblical context has been a historical pattern that worked for generations of faithful theologians. Perhaps the tension is found in appropriating philosophical language into Trinitarian and biblical language. In conclusion, it is as Ferguson forewords, Poythress is a polymath and a pastor, he wants us to love God with our minds and our hearts. Just as with his other books, it is an exhilarating ascend upon a biblical-theologically rich Everest. The profound might find it too simple in the beginning, the simple might find it too profound going forward (perhaps that is why Poythress is so underrated and underappreciated in mainstream readership), but those who ascend, ascend to knowledge and to love for the Triune God revealed most excellently in the resurrection of Christ.

[Ronnie Nichols · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed the book. Some of the illustrations and discussions were a bit too complex for me and at times I found myself unengaged as I read, but the author did help me in my understanding of the importance of the Trinity in grappling with the mysteries of God. The summaries at the end of the book and the glossary of terms in the back will be a great resource when reading the more "technical" writings of classical theism. I'm closing the book with a profound realization of my inability to understand the mysteries of God, but very thankful that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are able to understand, love and guide me in my inadequacies.

[Landon Coleman · Rating 3 out of 5]

I bought this book because (1) I like Poythress and (2) I like reading about the Trinity. This book is about the Trinity, but Poythress also talks about ontology, epistemology, historical theology, philosophy, classical Christian theism, comparative theology, and how the Trinity relates to each of these fields. This is a heady work, but one that argues that the Trinity must be included in all of our theological talking, reasoning, and thinking.

[Kevin Fulton · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was excellent at helping me understand the Trinity better without removing the mystery by digging into both the unity and diversity of God.
I am not sure the sections critiquing Aristotle, Aquinas, and Charnock needed to be so in depth, it almost felt like two books in one. I think the point could have been made briefer, so more time could be spent on the author's own views.

[Albert · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is difficult to evaluate. Some parts are 4-5 stars. Significant portions are barely worth 1. I should note that I got my copy (cheaper) from Reformation Heritage Books.

BLUF: I appreciate much of Poythress' writing and work. He's typically excellent. Here, he is not.

First: the purpose of the book. The subtitle is a little bit misleading due to the ambiguities of English. It is not that Poythress is providing a discussion of the attributes (as you would find in a theology proper) from a Trinitarian perspective. That is what I initially expected, but it is not what the book seeks. Rather, Poythress discusses the concept of divine attributes, and proposes a framework for considering the concept of attributes (which could then hypothetically be applied in a discussion of any one individual attribute). So instead of "A Trinitarian Approach to the Attributes" it is more "A Trinitarian Approach to the concept of Attributes."

Second: Poythress seems keen to integrate 3 different strands of modern theological thought. 1) Trinity. While the Trinity is affirmed and recognized (and I would say applied) in the last 2000 years, a recent trend in modern theological discourse is to bash all of Western theology as being implicitly unitarian instead of Trinitarian. Thus, the Trinity is to be brought to the fore of every discussion. 2) Christocentricity / Biblical Theology. The field of "biblical theology" which focuses on the history of revelation, which then culminates in the work of Christ, giving a Christocentric frame to theology. This is similar to Barth / Neo-Orthodox ways of thinking, that everything must be explicitly related to (or derived from) the life of Christ. 3) Anti-Metaphysics. The long cry of modern theology from the 1800s onward is that classical Christian theology (henceforth CCT) is "metaphysically speculative" and thus must be abandoned for what is truly "biblical." This relates to the second strand of biblical theology as well (which is often pitted against systematic theology for this very reason).

Poythress draws on each of these. His explicit purpose is to reframe the concept of divine attributes (in the abstract) around the Trinity. His chapters almost always contain a section devoted to discussing from a Christocentric perspective. And, his main critique of those from CCT whom he interacts with is their metaphysical terminology.

As to the actual content of the book:

Positive content:

1. There are many places where Poythress provides discussions that are indeed thought-provoking. Their benefits don't lie in the content itself that is presented, but in the thought which is provoked in reflecting upon / interacting with them.

2. The book is incredibly easy to read, like most of Poythress' work.

3. The Trinity is certainly important, and some reflections on specific attributes which apply the Trinity in more fully understanding that attribute, are very helpful.

4. The presentation of linguistics (part 4) is very good.

Negative content:

1. Most of the critiques are indefinite, and worthless. "It could possibly be maybe misunderstood by someone" isn't a valid critique of CCT. If it is a valid critique, then we must reject Scripture, which can also be possibly misunderstood (and ironically, we must also reject Poythress). I noticed this trend early on, and started circling every indefinite term of "can," "might," "may," etc. I stopped a couple of chapters later, because I was circling too many of them. In this vein, Poythress spends the first 4 parts of the book in making small shots like these, without actually calling anything wrong, in order to put the reader in a mindset which is hostile to CCT (before any actual criticisms are made).

2. Disagreement with presentation and disagreement with substance aren't the same. When Poythress critiques Turretin for calling the attributes our concepts representing different ways that God acts, and then a few pages later presents his own discussion which calls the attributes our concepts representing different ways that God acts, there's a problem. Poythress doesn't like the presentation, and spends all his criticism on presentation. The real question we want to know: is Turretin right? Poythress wants to say "yes" (because Turretin is), but also wants to highly qualify that and say "no" at the same time since Turretin uses language that Poythress doesn't like.

3. If "philosophical language" is a variety of "technical language," which is useful, and conceded to have contrast, variation, and distribution (CVD), then criticizing it on the basis that it doesn't have CVD is a logical contradiction.

4. I got very tired of reading the phrase "this is deeply mysterious." Simplicity in CCT is just as mysterious, and isn't a way of getting behind or eliminating mystery.

5. Poythress conceded early on (correctly) that incomprehensible does not imply unknowable. Something can be incomprehensible, and yet truly knowable. Yet later, when discussion "essence," he criticizes people on using the term, because they are trying to know something incomprehensible. His criticism assumes that if it is incomprehensible, then it is not truly knowable. This is a logical contradiction.

6. The strongest direct critique of Aristotle is that Aristotle thought fire was a substance. We know better that fire is a process. All other critiques of Aristotle fall into negative content 1, 3, and 5. I have other disagreements about his presentation / interpretation of Aristotle. Boethius and Scotus would both seem to disagree with Poythress' interpretation of how CCT used Aristotle. It would have been better if Poythress referenced Aquinas' commentaries on Aristotle to support his points as well. I also disagree with Poythress' proposed interpretation and critique of Aquinas (after cross-referencing and reading the referenced portions).

7. The Christocentric portions are unhelpful, shallow, and out of place. The promise of Christocentric methodology has yet to be fulfilled. I've eagerly looked forward to something modern which treats this well, but find myself repeatedly disappointed, and the discussions in each chapter about " in Christ's Resurrection" continue that trend of disappointment. Along this line of criticism, I find that the three modern strands from earlier (of which this is one) are typically overexaggerated by modern theologians, and usually invalid. And, often end in disappointment, failing to deliver on what they promise.

8. Poythress discusses the concept of "one-level knowledge" versus "two-level knowledge." I don't believe that anywhere he criticizes something as being one-level, he actually gives an argument demonstrating it. Further, if Turretin explicitly says that he is doing ectypal theology, it is wrong to read him as if he thinks he's doing archetypal theology. In this vein, Poythress spends time talking about the boundary between God and creation. Those who want to "master the boundary" try to define it, and then surpass it into archetypal knowledge. But when Poythress insists that the problem with technical terminology in CCT is that the boundary of the analogy (since technical language is still analogical / ectypal) is undefined, this is a logical contradiction. You can't criticize CCT for trying to define the nature of the analogy, when also criticizing it for not defining the nature of the analogy.

9. Most seriously: Poythress accuses everyone of sacrificing diversity on the altar of unity. This is where the doctrine of the Trinity comes in. Following Van Til (correctly), the unity and diversity in God (essence and persons) are co-ultimate. So, to treat unity as more ultimate is in fact, unitarian. However, Poythress has a problem. He says that the basis of the diversity in the attributes is in the diversity of the persons. Question: are the attributes ectypal or archetypal? If ectypal, then we're in a situation where all created diversity is derived from the diversity of the persons at an abstract metaphysical level. It's a diversity in our conceptions, not necessarily a diversity in God. If archetypal (which seems to be what Poythress wants to say), we have a very significant problem. Why? Because the attributes are describing the divine essence (or, the one-ness of God), which is the unity. Poythress has inserted diversity into the unity, and in reality, has sacrificed unity on the altar of diversity, instead of treating things in a way that does justice to both the unity and diversity of God as co-ultimate.

One wonders if in the beginning we cannot simply bring up simplicity as this: simplicity is describing the unity of God. The attributes are describing the unity of God. If this is so, then from a Trinitarian standpoint, we expect the attributes to be one. Why? Because the attributes are in the one-ness, not in the three-ness. If they are in the three-ness, then we must deny the statement of the Westminster Standards that the persons are distinguished by their personal properties (the eternal relations), and instead say that they are distinguished by prominent attributes. Coinherence of persons (mutual indwelling) is a consequence of unity, not that which constitutes the unity of God. That is either implicit tritheism or implicit partialism.

I'm left thinking the same thing that Macleod's review of TF Torrance's "Scottish Theology" says. We can appreciate, learn from, and integrate the Trinitarian insights. But, we can appropriate them into and enhance what is there, without needing to destroy and reconstruct it. While Poythress calls his proposal an "enhancement" of CCT, he actually proposes removing all traditional terminology, and reworking it from the ground up. That is not enhancement. That is deconstruction and reconstruction.

Overall thoughts: if one is prepared to read through critically, being familiar with perhaps Turretin and Owen, and wants to gather insights on ways (subtly suggested) that some areas might be improved by highlighting the Trinity, this is perhaps worth it (if parts 5-7 are entirely ignored). Otherwise, it is better to go with something else to discuss the attributes of God. I cannot recommend this to the average layperson.

[Moses Flores · Rating 5 out of 5]

A solid addition to the theology proper especially in the midst of much current controversy about how to think about God and how he relates to the world and his attributes. Poythress offers us something grounded in Scripture in how we think about these in the Trinity rather than filtering our thoughts through philosophy, especially Aristotle’s influence. A very welcomed and timely volume!

[Todd Miles · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good book. Perhaps a bit long. But for the questions that I brought to the book, his answers were on point. As usual, the writing and theology of Vern Poythress is clear. He delves into Trinitarian mysteries and takes on some doctrines of God that are not easily understood. Poythress's commitment to biblical authority and devotion to the Lord is palpable. His nuance is helpful and necessary. His cautions even more so. Anyone wanting to understand the current debates surrounding divine simplicity, for example, should read this book. If you are convinced you understand the doctrine and its utility, you will be even better served by reading it.

[Andy Dollahite · Rating 2 out of 5]

There are some redeeming pages here, but I don't think any leading Thomist (of any stripe) or advocate of classical Christian theism would consider Poythress's engagement with their project compelling. His writing betrays a superficial and incomplete understanding of basic principles and terms, and his alternative proposals are shaky at best. He's done much great work as a servant of the church, but this book is rather disappointing throughout.

[Dean · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very significant contribution to the debate/conversation on the Doctrine of God with respect to classical theology and Christian personalism. Very clearly written, profound, and presents a compelling vision from a posture of humility and confidence.

[Zablon · Rating 4 out of 5]

“They tried to account for unity and diversity in the world, but they did not appeal to the unity and diversity in God’s plan and in God’s word bringing his plan to expression. They lacked the right starting point, and this foundational corruption corrupted everything else.”

[Josh · Rating 5 out of 5]

Exceptional!

[Johnny Aiello · Rating 4 out of 5]

A highly accessible yet theologically rich work on the Godhead which provoked worship. I would recommend to the seasoned vet and the new believer.

[Vincent Lemieux · Rating 5 out of 5]

4,5 stars. I'm really glad I read this book. For me, it was like drinking at the fresh water of the mysteries of the Triune God. In my personal opinion, Poythress is very orthodox in his doctrine of God, but the main point of his book is that he pointed out that some formulations about God's being in the past were more based on an Aristotle concept of the world than a biblical one. And I think his case is strong.

I loved it, and I recommend it to anyone who, just like me, LOVE the theologians of the past, especially for their doctrine of God.